The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 3 4 ..,eppettArurs Il:"r:tfj: of relangana, rep bv chief secrerary, Secretariat Buitdinss, Department rep bv its prinr;ipar secretary, *:'"t:1:,Erl3if, lSlff?a5[Bnce I?3"r3;t?"t rreasuries and Accounts, state of reransana, Abids, -.Laxmait, S/o. Narsimlu, Aoe ;;;x?]B:,3""r cr on 31.2.1e, CJr,,i"yI"r 59 years, Re tired I axes, Charminar Bogum- Deputy Division, .xll ' fi , ff [ [1[ ?l;31t, ?fl il,;if i,q,fl: #ffi ,?s3,, T,"ifl ,t 36iX33,.'* 6. Pafluri Uma Maheswi orocommLsiolild#i,:l?,,e"?y3#-i?3if 3;i?ii!3rr.liifu 3;;c_Retdcro ' 9lr,il,[3#,'l;;'#r?ifl$ilt,+g:?,8]01",,., Rerd sGr on 31 8 i8, 30- 8. Palreddy Upender Rr scnoorAss-i5tla;il.:i1?isl,i"X,ilfj,,ff

9. K. Raja Reddy. S/o H i#lirffjfr,l!"years,occRetd sdJi02,il'M;i:r:31:[j,+:ftoty: * vears, occ Retd Schoor Assistant o "" o ' "fl 3[lg''l "un::Ti.5:|,,J j,S,y,"iStf \1i ij:ifli s:l$li,f fl;s 5 e ye a rs, o cc if,t1,ffi,;,j:Hi'sx:s%1{n'!",fi3"?Ti,,y3t;Ar%.,?J;:..,?J:,fi,?,: "3"??3%11'3,f; lI?5;{3;, ja:?i8;flglf '' 3o Y,1?Bi,KB fJH,;:B: #?:?,3 l.L?lili; [iy",.jl]?,.?:,o.,,sra "fi Li'3'#3[#"31''.?1,",?'],'3:&xil*f J,"B'ilxglfi,,lll,",,,Jn:.Jo'* nr o n 3 0,, ^3fl ,',,",*siJs'!?,p"ff ; fl{f,ilJ::'fr " [TI8x? #T,i',', 1,,?1"*,.*?[f, iil],il; tfl:o,s* #*,=, o cc R,: td S ch oo,

16.Y^A.U?pynIa, Wo. Nagabhushanam, Aged 59 years, Retd Superintendant on

29.2.2020, Pay and Accounts Office, Hyierabad. l8.Vasari Ramaswamy, '17. Mudireddy Sudhaker Reddy, S/o. Latchi Reddy, Aged 59 years, Occ_ Retd School Assistanton 3.1.1.2020, Miryalguda, ttii{onOa. ' ^S{o. !,J-arqyqna, Aged 59 years, Occ. Retd phvsical Education Teacher oh so.s.zoie,'D;vb;p'rtii, tGr{;riolvl"" ' \vrv ' ' 'ro'uc 19.T. Konda Reddy, S/o T. Basi Reddy, Aged 60 years, Occ- Retd Schoot Assistant on 30.4.2019, Vidyanagar, Hiber5UiO.

20.Kondakindi Shobha Kala, Wo. Janardhan Reddy, Aged 60 years, Occ_ Retd schoot Assistant on 31.3.201e zpHS Mrtkapu;:Cd6rir;;ai ffiiiioII ?rlr?ii Bhongir.

21.Minu Narayan Rao, S/o..Seetha Rama Chandra Rao, Aged 60 years, Occ_ Retd on 31.1O.2O19 as Head frraster CuriamguO" ellafiri M;"d;-i;hr;A Reddy District.

22.Viswanadula Chandramouli, S/o.. Nagabhushanam, Aged 59 years, Occ- Retd on 31.1.2020 as School Assistait Govemment jJigh-dch";i il.;;;i Nalgonda.

23. chakrahari Amjamraiu, s/o. Laxmanraju, Aged 60 years, occ- Gazetted Head Master, Reddy bolo dv, tutirva ra g uA; ; Ni;'s;;i;. - "

24.G. Rani sowbhagayavathy, w./o. samuer, Aged 60 years, occ Retired schoor Assistant on s't.,t2.20fi , 2FnSsrro"ir.r;i,;?i{;d, neoov oisirict.

25.Ch. Shesha Vardhani, !{o.^ llaltjt<arlqna Rao, Aged 60 years, Occ_ Retd 6"f""V, V;;;.fi;iipr;;, School Assistant on 30.6.2019, Hyderabad. -'Huda Sii '

26.G. Janaki RgQd.V,S/o. Anantha Reddy, Aged 60 years, Occ_ Retd School Assistant on 30.9.2019, Srinagar Coloni, I,laigondi. 2T.Tantena.Pally Siadulu,_S/o. papaiah, Aged 59 years, Occ_ Retd School Assista nt on 91 .3.2O2O, Zp HS p azzer, i{a tlond a Diitrtct.'

28. Ranapanga.Krupanandam, S/o. yesob, Aged 59 vears. Occ_ Retd Secndarv uraoe I eacher on 31.1.2020, Wadapally, Damara6harla Mandal, Natgonda. ' ^B^oy.apg!-ty falnsetty, S/o. pitchaiah, Aged 61 years, Occ_ Retired principal on 30.11 .2O18, Govemment Junior Coileg!, ruamirittv, nvAerabad.-

20. -

30. A.V^anqia'-wo. Krishna Murthy, Aged 60 years, occ- Retired schoor Assistant on 31.10.20'19, Ekasila Nagar, Wa-rangal.-

31.M. Parvathalu. Aoed 59 years, Retired ASI on 31.3.2020, NTR Colony, Wanaparthy. - -

32.V. Damodar,.S/o. Bakkaiah, Aged 59 years, Retd SGT on 31.3.2020 Shanthinagar, Nagarkumool. -

33.Ravula Mahender Reddy, S/o.. Thirupathi Reddy, Aged 59 years, Ret SGT on 'eitrppa, 31.82019, Sainag_ar, Hinmakonda,'Waransii 'D rriailkiii,lnJ, St,i. ASed 60 years, Retd. Schoot Assistant o"n aO.s.zois,'2iFiS Mogitigr-85I, Ranga Reddy District. * yFlg g3!:i111fl1.[l6;;fl"oll,1;.11n,", Aged 60 vears, Re rd schoor Asst, " |i +i'r1,.8:y8 [ rs["",#:i'ffi.?, t%%1 ru B, Jf,:[: R e td S c h o c, r A ss i sra nt o n "i:;'r'r',:#i'2f{.o*1!311t#"i.f '"-:'r:B',fi 3i,i,-R'g,i,"ff 3!}:.tiJ "5i33.%15,'Fih"io'6";n[ii?ifl iglfl?Xf:i[,,',,'r5;.rB1o*?ll],["g;u,.". *YaB61'1,i,"8ff llis:,{3;Iaffi t?ltr;,fl??g5g:::%t"_ffi ;}110.,o,"" jj*j,_gi_":Jfr :t;iff :tixl?;,tsf, ,?[?,ttf",irs,.,i,,,:1,f; ,,,"*:: Buchi Reddy, S/o. p. La fl #.;"f "%&lro5o,'?Elgr*.rX1[Sg:0,fi

39.T. Manik Reddv. S/o. T ""s:, ::H:,:'J,i,i.ii;,Sjl,.B1

40.P. Te Ra 41 . B. Srinivas, Master on Rangareddy Z"""Ii&d')$?i3^'fl g;$flt"r'i.',#ffi i*,,i,? j,i?,1?r,i"B1 ' [1 "tffi Bs"#l nE iil ; +' "$ filsi, jfl *3.yfl[l"uy,Ff.ail',1*"nfl -ff#*ii::x:"fi "[?J:; :,t So.,,l "Eg, gt;;,. ff :fl di"rT#,J;:f b,5.fl ":3Xi:"J0i..,", ,.J;.lu:,""ii$,,fl !*g;,lii:Hj"i',#:"ii"Tl1gffi:,81 otSuo?SJrtTn,Pj'.,rP#ffi ,,,,0;#ffiX,,ir,fi -"R:"r',l"ffi 46. Krupasagar, S/o. B. Nar l,o?%J,Bil?,.S,o*"1,:ijj,,"" g,-J,"Ioil3"Hii;t9':L33%Tr1?"i,':XLXf 't*:X#:;,,r,Bi:[ ftr?i,rf|ff T"-rit Petitioner Nos.4 ro 46 Not Necessary parries in this IANO:1 OF 202s ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 1S j CpC praying that in the circumstancres stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be prs35g6 1s suspend the impugned common orders of the Learned Single Judgle dated.

20.12.2024inW.P.No"14315of2021'pendingdisposaloftheaboveWdt Appeal. IANO:2O F 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theH(lhCourtmaybepleasedto direct the Respondents No l to 3 to pay the difference amount on the Grhtuity/ Earned in view of the revision of pay on par with the pensioner who are drawing enhanced Gratuity/encashment of Earned Leave w e'f 1 '4 '2020 as per the lawlaid down by the Supreme Court in Purshottam Lal and Ors Vs Union of lndia and Anr reported in AIR 1973 SC AIR 1088' The All Manipur Pensioners Assn "' vs. The State of Manipur in Civil Appeal No'10857/2006 and other Judgments to the Appellants, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal' Counsel for the Appellants: SRI PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU Counsel for the Respondent No'1 to 3: SRI S'RAII-U-L REDDY' SPL' GP / GP FOR SERVICES.II WRIT APP EAL NO: 170 0F 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Preferred Against the Order Dated 20t12t2024, Passed in W'P' No' 15944 of 2021 on the file of the High Court Between:

1. Manyam Venkata Rama Rao' S/-o Ragavaiah' Aoed 63 vears' Retired as Jr'coilege' Viaiyanagar Colony' physicat Director HYderabad. "n?'iislzdis,liiiavr-n"rg"r i'i]il?i District. 'ls'E:::*t'"t*'[,T"[?TJ'r3'?,iilT:2'J'',8"fl"'d-13;l^:"''l'?f 'g,lSSl;::l,l,If :g$al;,?8iFffBil':i1?53Lfl''ft i"'1';3fi ;':"'''"ou' '8rj+"f y#n$"""%5il4"J,?'3i3ilTB1,""&1t,*:;.031J'"fi 'RS;"fl '"f " *,*3g:,0', ff, Xf;Sffi ,, Tfi :Efl n 5i,l HlSl'n'"l "' ' 33,,, ?,'lAtalTl. 33 . g,.dr8?g:Aff"1ffi fl:"H1li1fl la,tfi :9, "'&,'33',?#"'''"0 as P ri ncipa' on "XBTi'

7. Sama Ravinde- Redd rr,r"ii",',j, eiistrra;;:gp,.,s{"#iJ?":a.j-.**g:r.:l.fil?.,Xi",[id as Head 'RI:lltYi:'f .?L?ffinl?;Y"n?[X13fi Xf#l;t8i3,11r",i,".,.#["*sRecord 9. N.Annaj Sarma. S/o.Sr "##AYr''i8;, fl 331,f,?. Ji#j, Ret i red a s J r Ass ista n t o n Un" t "ii%SS8:Irtff l,33,,ffil:.5",T:o a s J r Ass ista nt 'l0.T.Muddu Reddv, S/o.C o n eo7a rzo i6 li -x".i ;# s uaiz o1 a-, " o iiinu'iilflJ: t,A,,i t

12.R.L.N Charyuhr. S/o t s t r i i r z6\' 6,' i i' j l, ff V RS o n . n i il io i s,l,; ii A ;f; '3i*,4%:H:rl'r?T,'i o}3|'o a s A s s i sta n t re g i stra r 13. M.A.Subhan, S,tr.M.A.S " IS?Jl?:lsl t, iJ)1 J13 ; Hi l Tfl,x:igft,"f,rr""1 6 0 ve a rs, Ret i re c a s As s ista nt " E,Yi{ll3i:'"H*,,3',oY;,iffB5linfiio*;ofo9"o 60 vears, Retired as "f H ?l r|%,€:l:,ryj[: AND

2. 3 4

5. 6 7 ...APPELLANTS State of Telangana, Rep. by Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. *e#jfflt8j"l"W:,":ttE'*t::: (HRM-') Department, Gr:rvernment or The Director of T.easuries and Accounts, Govt. of Telangana, Hyderabad. yi,f[vr?Jn21y-,3',,"'j,";[?yf,;,ffi,r.fn1#:{:,$?Tsl as Schoor Assistant on fj[?r3?b:!,",?1";$fl ili!,;,f"'rlt j;",il?L';.*fi Keshidi Satyanaravana. S/r tfJy#b{[;ti/,Tiail?2ffiZlt!A;],^gi3,tffi 3i,,#"J[:i?:."#X Gandham praveen Kumar. Sf,Tl,,%1s f,.#l'i"iTfl ', ?/,"4/3f slgf 3'i};d?,i,.1 f 3,,ft1';' i i,"g!?X5i lpg,,i,%,..n"",Assistanton

9. V. Chennakeshava ulu -i;:i,;#'i::)?5,r%',U,i6",r.?fl Xii;,,$%"ol,.il,.ff e1?,Tfi 5;?X,,i,,;:l?,, " 3 3;?il?:il1$?l3rif;llli*6; #""ooL?,[?,'s, "ff:'[x!i,1",iiffi 3,ff ::i],:f li?!,i,!g:+r,{F,,}offi s,:',Ir^xfi i Reti red as s Gr o n 3, t 7 / 20 1 e, H District.

12. T.Laxminarayana, S/o'Buchalfr, RgtO 60 ygaq'. Retired as school Assistant '' ; r.sii d' i i6;,ZFnts A"r'"t-r'r i g i,,' H a"n m a ko rid a' w ara nsa l( U ) D ist' 13.B Vishnu Murthy, S/o.Bichiah. Aged Qp Vears' Retired as SGT on 3111212018' ' " Ups ij"iiiir.vdid,' na*nasit iol6nv, Nalarkurnool District' Retired as SGT Teacher l4.Pakeerappa, S/o Bichappa, Aged 60 -years' '- r;i,;iu:{,-2 p s"nooi'6pui""p"tti' B'hootnpur Mandal' Mahabubnagar Retired as School l5.Chowhan Eswar Singh, S/o Narayan Sing' Age6 ,90.y"9F.' ' " X$;U;i on C| i zizolo, ZiAs, edzar Hath nui Ad i labad District' l6.pothuri venkata srinivasa Raju, sio.surayanarayana Raju, Aged.69 yel:l '" h;iiffi ;;'sGT ieicnei"i-aiiizots, vamabay colony, Rajenbdranasar 17.A Ranqa Reddy, Sio. Padma Reddy, AO-ed-6J. ye.ap' Retired as SGT Teacher " ;; 3iiEi2bi8'liitetiguoa, Sanomalar, R'R'District' lS.Panduqula Satyanrayana, S/o'Narayana Aged 60 years' Retired as School '" ;G;[i;"[" 3iistzois, Jiilelguda, R'R District' lg.Kondareddy Sri Ranga Reddy, Sio Ram Reddy' Aoed 60 vears' Retired as Gazetted Head Master, .1.'SOititZliS,'Histinapdrbmtast, R.R.District. Mandal, R.R.District. *'Retiredasschoor ^Xge,JElf l"'slE,23i%Ii*?,[':'Jj]3#"=X1Yt9Rlr?3,L.f 2l.Balaiah Bushipaka, S/o'Kondaiah, Aged 60 years'. Retired as Gazetted Head '' ilil;i;;'.;? iE io i s, ctriiiemparrio, 22.V.Krishna Murthy' S/o.Ramulu, Aged 59 years' Retired as Head Master on -- itiiltzozo, ZPHS Peechara, Nirmal' years, Retired as PG 23. C.Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy, Aged. '" il;;'M;;6i on zot'r'r dtifi , ZPHS chamdnpallv' Nirmal' -t'lam pailv' Nal gonda' -60 'oy"uithffi b,g|"^[?[?"Yiilll"t":i"33,{r1il}S?'ll"dasRecordAssistant 25. P.Sanieeva Rao, S/o.Ramaiah, Aged 6.0 Vgars' Retired on 301412019 as P E T i pii.["i ii i;;i#i, 2Fs5'i[r;;Ya";,tdi'.,Bivv'aram Mandar' Mahabubabad' ' " 26.Anuqu Narsi Reddy, S/o.Malla Reddy, Aged 60 years. Retired as L F L Head rvrasler on 31t12t2o18, [,,i|J'FS ih;iili'nl]ipeta futandbt, Yadadri Bhingir' years' Retired as Jr' Lecturer on

27. R Ranqa Reddy, Sio Venkat Reddy' ASeg .6.0 '' b's));)did,' N;;'Modet Ji. iollege,' Upfal, Medchar' 28.Yenumala Narapu Reddy, s/o.venkat Reddy, Aged 60 years' Retired as Jr' '" Affiffift; Clfitzotti'Z:oiizinment Jr' collese' Aliva' Hvderabad' * P:"?JLnJrltl,?,?'r'l[:'#ffi"",-"J15',t$il]i'f8i'*i3"'[3?3'$:'J'"'oo'1: " 30.N.Ram Reddy, S/o.Dharma Reddy'..Aqed, 6.0 years' Retired as LFL Head Master on 3o/1 1i2018:'i\ippS"o56bi Venrtatap'"' R'ajapet Mandal' Yadadri Bhongir. 31 .Dr S Surendra Kumar, Age 6Q V.eaq' Retired as Jr' Lecturer on3Ol11l2019' Keshavmemorial Jr. College' HyderaDao' 32'Thatikinda sa'ram. s/o.chendra.iah, Aged 60 years, Retired r:ichoor Assistant eer vv ,vu' on31/Bl20lg Adharshanagar, Nirmii I 1

34. B.Sheker Redclv. S/o

33. C.Goverdhan Reddv S/.o.. Sri C.Chenna Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Retired Head Master on yiatzota, Z p H'i,' jirr"E'gJjlli."ng, Red(ty District, Srate of Telangana. - A;;ti;;i"nti)'iizo"i5, ,"Eilg:.5.%1:lk$fl:i,[3r r,i3;.d*x,.".'531r,:,?i:r' 35.V.Padma, D/o Brahmaia!, Aggg.6q years, Reiiied as SGt on 3Otgt2O1B. MPPS B. C. Co krny, Madhpur, [,l.ini,ir,jpriri: rr,ra"n'jar, vaoao ri Bhonsir. zPHS K Pet, Bayyaram]il3fl5iifr%?160 vears' Retired as sr;hool Assistant,

36. Neelam Sahadev. S/o.E " 8"'jf ;l :?"y fl l T? rub,?[: I333'3L.fl3 ilr,".,: #;fjBi, ["J " 331"&XT r'# l, 31& ii'! [,,gir,? [l t v$fl.:i,f ,'*li " " (Respondent Nos. 4 to 38 are not necessary parties in this Writ Appeal) "iiFB i re c a s G azetted s, Reti red a s lA NO: 1 oF 2025 ...REiSPONDENTS Petition under section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may t)e pleased to suspend the para 4(e) and para 8.2 0f the G.o.Ms.No.55, datecr 1110612021 , pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. IA NO: 20F 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstilnces stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondents to pay the difference amount on the gratu ity/r,rarned reave encashment in view of the revision of pay on par with the pensiorrer who are drawing enhanced gratuity/earned reave encashment w.e.f 01to4t2o2.oas per the law raid down by.the sr,preme court in purshottam Lar and ors v,s. Union of lndia and another reponed in ArR 1973 SC 108g, The A[ Manipur pensioners Assn. Vs The state or rltsnrpv;- in civir Appear No logsT r2ooe and other Judgments, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appeltants: Ms. VEDULA CHTTRALEKHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SPL. GP / ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT APPEAL NO: 210 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred against the Order Dated 2011212024, in W.P.No. 1 4641 Of 2021 and pass gn the fi le of the High Court. Between: '1 . Lanka Sridhar, S/o. Kishan Rao, Age. 59 years, Occ. Retired School Assistant, Date of Retirement. 31-07-2019, Rl/o Flat No. 102, Ashok Residency Phase-|, Mubarak Nagar, Nizambad, Telangana State.

2. Nalla Ravindra Reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy, Age. 59 years, Occ. Retired School Assistant, Date of Retirement. 31-07-2019, H.No. 11-1-278/5, Beside Om Traders, VUetha Colony, Nizambad, felangana State.

3. Challa Venkateshwar Rao, Sio. C. Narasimha Murthy, Age. 60 Retired School Assistant, Date of Retirement. 30-06-2019' Srinivasapuram Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. years, Occ . H.No.3-14-1,

4. A. Ananda Goud, S/o. A. Narsa Goud, Age. 61 years, Occ. Retired School Asst., Date of Retirement. 30-1 '1-2018, H.No. 2-2-l 105/3/A, Anandd Nilayam, Beside DMR Apts., lndira Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

5. A. Suryanarayana, S/o. A. Veeraiah, Age-.-ap9y! 6l -Ve-qry,^O99. $.etip-O School-Asst.,'Date of Retirement.2g-2-2O2O, H.No. 3-9-502/2, Plot No 95, Road No.5, Madhura Nagar, Mansurabad, Hyderabad, Telangana

6. K.Somireddy, S/o Gopal Reddy,lge-d about 60 yrs, Qccu. Rtd. School Asst Date of Retiiement. 3i.05.2019, ZPHS Utlapally, Dist .Miryalaguda.

7. D. Mallikarjuna, S/o Balappa, Aged 60 years, Occ . Rtd School Assistant Date of Retirem6nt . 30.3.2019 Zphs Mogiligidda, Ranga Reddy District.

8. Bairi Narsaiah, Sio. Yadagiri, Age. 62 years, Occ. Retired School Assistant, Date of Retirerirent. 07-20i8, H.No. 1-9-202l7/D, Ramnagar, Hyderabad. 9. T. Ravi Kumar, S/o T. Surya Narayana Rao, Aged about 60 Years, Occ. Rtd Gaz HM Grabe-ll, Date'of Reiirement . ?j0.6.2019, Ryo 8-7-9'll95, Hasthinapuram South, Sagar Road, Hyderabad.

10.K. Sambashivudu, S/o Sathaiah, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Rtd School Asst' Date of Retirement .25.3.2019, ZPHS, Thandgapally, Choutuppal Mandal ' District Yadadri Bhongir. 1'1.P. Raju, S/o. P. Anianeyulu, Age. 60 years, Retired as S.A, Date of Retirehbnt. 30.06.2b19'from ZPHS, Kollur, Fl./o. H.No.4-'10-37' Ramnagar, Mahabubnagar. -Occu..

12.Musku Rajeshwar Reddy, S/o M. Chirma Reddy, Ag-e. 60 years.,.Occ. Retd as SGT, Date of Retiremeirt. 30.11.2018, R/o. 3-50, Dhammur, Mandal Boath' Adilabad District ...APPELLANTS ANO

1. The State of Telangana, rep by Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad. I?3"r3A:"o"to'' ' *:,*'i:,"J,l3ii!31[1,5]:3::e Deeartment rep bv its Pr ncipar Secretary, t Treasuries and Accounts, state of Terangana, Abids, 4. R. Narsingha Rao. S/o R; !h91.a11a.-nge. 59 years, Occ Retired Schoot Assistant, Date of Rerirement. si-roritiiEl p6"rt'and Viragtr Guda, Mandar. Jainath, Dist. Aditabad, Telangana StaG. orneiileiexis'ioz:2ffi :(:11$?:fr+l;fr:."q:l;:1i":E*,?x,s Vittage Sonata, Mandat. Boath, Dist ljir-iolj, ilil'rrgrna Stare.

5. C. Prem Sinqh S/ o. Dz -' ' -"' ' 'F_,i!_%i"#,f hospital, Yenegonda, tt/ahabubn'agii 2020, H. No. 4. 1 1 2t B, Bhagavathi Nrl;r; d;i;6;i " "Y&1%'r,ft]iei,:,319:iit8,pi.,I?,,5:S":i:$[ffi ,?,El: 7. Sere Sudhaker, Occ EDN as.School Assistant, Date of Rer:irement. 29_02- 8. Dadi Bhaskar Reddv "nairrl"mirf B,.fltf I B. Rarnakishan Rao, S/ :,[",.[;[r]*?1ej",..th,fl:*Ii?ii,,3,ihsn[::l co mmercia r ri * onib.,-iia,"t 3inil3[ll!, 5ft:, .#? Pragathinagar Dilsukhnalar HyOerabai. -" e. 60 0-2018, \/ears, H.No Occ.Dy. 11-75t1.

10. G.. Jagadeeshwar Reddy, S/o. G. Kuruma Re eo ulit=oi J 6aii" lr' iietiie ment oe-oi-zo i d,'i:,$31' 1 tg? /3ii [?T*,*if; i Cotony,Badepaily,.laoll,eiraloisi"n/|lnri"ut',i16'rr. " 31ij""ffi,?,."i*? fJ%...is%liH3,j131lff;f33;f,"J:i,.iif3:i .rr,1,",flj,31; 't2.8. Venkat Reddy. S/o. B. parvathi Reddy, Aoe.6( ZPHS, Tankara 3:r:r,Jl:;t"ihillmir:i;.,5,:#{y:^i":13i,3,388:u[:1*??: l3.Alv.ala.Bichanna Goud, S/o. Alvala Ramakri.shna r Retired Asst. Sub_lnso rcyamasnl!iari.-y:as,til,:#,friffltsr,3Jx;qi}#r]if :333; "E=ii'8iT."et'r:i?J;:H,",$:S8,rdg:.2Bi1lssr:::9:cu_Rtd.schoo, Saroornagar, Dist. Ringareddy -- '"' ct t tr raroomaqar, Mandal. "il"ft11Q{,j1.^3x;.s'BJ,lflH€;ft 98.pi:"^[??,[:;?"8;[,T",i8fi IS#,T,: 31 .03.2020 R:/o . arun.6syrn"sbr,- D6n."b;;"J'ilgrr, Bandta Juda Jaseer, Mandal. Gandipet Dist. Rairgar6ddy. - ' -"*" ,., "H#'J:S:ilS"fl 1{;"'##i?:ft,f ,fi,,#f; ,1,.3?:H:f,?,,Si,t?"if 3a*,1 17.8. Satynarayana S/o Lingaiah, Aged about 59 vea "nii -6ii" E me n t io g :-drt, " ft /,"" : % pf BBfiJ:, "T t?, Ly :l{:l}Xffi :

18.A. Bhumaiah, S/o Narayana, Age 60 years, Occ. Rtd School Assistant, Date of Retirement. 25.8.2019, Zphs Wargal Mandal, District. Siddipet. lg.Singoji Subhash, S/o Ramdas, Age 59 yearq-Occ.-Rtd S.G.T. Teacher, Date of Re[irement. 25.2.2020, Manda[Markook, District Siddipet. '

20.Kothapally Anuradha, D/o Balaram, Age QQ-yqars,Ocg.Rtd LFL HM Educdtiori Dept, Date of Retirement. 31.1.2019, Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

21. Gundagani Ravinder, S/o Ramchandraiah, Age 59.years,. Occ. Asst, Date of Retirement. 31.3.2020, Ramakrishna Nagar, Nalagonda District. Rtd School Panagal ,

22.Punna Venkateshwarlu, S/o Ramkrishnaiah, Age 60 Years, Secretary, Agri market Committee Dpt, Date of Retirement. Chityal, Nalgonda District. Occ. Rtd 28.2.2019,

23.K. Yesupu, S/o. K. Pethur, Age. 60 years, Occ. Retired School Assistant, Date of Retirement. 31 -05-201 9.

24.Chekuri Ramesh Chandra, S/o Narsimha Rao, Aged about 60 years, Occ' - Retd Market Supervisor, Date of Retirement 31-7 .2018' Reddy Colony, Miryalaguda, District Nalgonda.

25. Nandikonda Anjaiah, S/o Ramaiah, Aged- years, 'Occ. Retd Secretary Grade'-lll, Date of Retirement. 31 8.2018' Krishna Manasa Colony' Miryalaguda District Nalgonda.. -abo^ut. -61.

26. Swarna Latha, W/o Lambi Raghavulu, Age.59 years, Occ. Retd as GHM -- ZPHS, oate ot Retirement. 30:11.2019, R/ o, H.No.6-89, Srinivas Colony, Mahbubnagar, 2T.Kodtioaka Sambaiah, S/o Kannaiah, Age 59 years, Occ. Retd P'D' Date of - Retirement 31 .3.2020, PUo. 3-9-247 I A, N-ew Reddy Clny, Hanmakonda' Respondent Nos.4 to 27 arc nolnecessary parties ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the impugned common orders of the Learned single Judge dated. W.P.No.14641 of 2021, pending disposal of the above Writ 20.12.2O24 in Appeal. IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to pay the difference amount on the Gratuity/ Earned in view of the revision of pay on par with the pensioner \Mho are drawing enhanced Gratuity/encashment of Earned Leave w-e.f 1.4.2020 as per,the Ia wlaid down by the Supreme court in purshottam Lal and ors Vs Union of lndia and Anr reported in ArR 1973 sc Alp. 108g, The Ail Manipur F,ensioners Assn vs. The State of Manipur in civir Appear No.'r0857/2006 and othr:r Judgments to the Appellants, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.-- Counsel for the Appellants: SRt PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, SpL. Gp / GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATTON The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT ,r4l THE IION'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON,BLE SMT JUSTICE R'ENUKA YARA Nos.2O9 t70 ar.d.2L Oof 2025 WRIT COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hort'bte the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paut) These intra-Court Appeals take exception to the common order passed in W'P'Nos'14315' 15944 and' 14641 of 2O2l' dated 20.12.2024 d'ecided along w'ith other matters' 2. The Writ Petitions were filed by retired employees assailing G.O.Ms.Nos.55 and 56' dated ll'06'2021' The main grievance of the petitioners/ appellants is that the respondents/ State while issuing the said G'Os' made it clear that the revised consolidated basic pension shall come into force with effect from 01'07'2018 and monetary benefits shall be allowed w'e'f Thus, no difference of Retirement Gratuity / Encashment of Earned Leave shall be payable to the retired employees who retired between 01'O7'2018 and 31'03'202O' o7.o4.2020- notionallY Contention of the appellants; 3. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the pensioners belong to one homogeneous The respondents/ State by putting the said condition and class and made an attemPt to cut-off date divided a homogeneous HA( rJ (SP,J) & RY,J \\/a l,)9 2025 & batch create a class \^,ithin the class. This hits Article 14 of the Z Constitution arl,l cannot be treated to be a valid cl; tssification. There is no rat: onale behind the same, neither ther,l exist any object sought to be achieved.

4. Learned c c,unsel for the appellants, by taking th is Court to the order of th e learned Single Judge in the afor esaid Writ Petitions, urgecl that after considering the various jurlgments of the Supreme Court, the learned single Judge cane tr ) hold that the judgments are indeed applicable, but opined that the prescription of r:ut off date for not extending actua monetary benefits is not ba.d in law.

5. Criticizing the aforesaid findings, learned coun,;e1 for the appella,ts urged that the curtains are linally drar.r,n or: this issue by the judgmenl s of the Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association v. State of Manipurr and Ma.harashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association v. State of Maharashtraz. In view of these atrthoritative pronouncements, wherein previous Constitution Bench judgment ' 1zozol t+ Supreme Cour: ,--ases 625 ' (2023) ll Supreme Cour. (lases 186 ,,4 J TTACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wa 209 2025 & batch of the SuPreme Court in DS Nakara v' Union of Indiaa was considered, learned Single Judge has certainly erred in not interfering with the offending portion of 'G'Os and erred in declining the relief'

6.Learnedcounselfortheappellants,byplacingrelianceon Article 366 (i7) of the Constitution' submits that dehnition of pension is wide enough to include gratuity and retiral dues' In this view of the matter' the learned singte Judge was not justified in not interfering with the impugned G'os' Conte ntion of the State: 7. Sri S. Rahul Reddy' learned Special Government Pleader' representing the State on the other hand supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and urged that the learned Single Judge has considered the judgments cited by present appellants in the a-foresaid paragraphs as well as the other judgments of the Supreme Court and rightly came to hold that the recommendalion of Pay Commission is not as such binding on the Government and financial constraints is one of the relevant considerations for Prescribing a cut off date- Thus, on that consideration if Government has decided not to extend relevant ' ret: 1tl scc:os 4 IIACJ (SP.J) & RY,J \\'a 109 2025 & batch the actual bene:fit for a particular period a,d prescrirred a cut-off date, it cannot lte said to be unconstitutional in naturr:. l\r\ B. To buttrt:ss the aJoresaid contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P. Pensioners' Association+. It is sul rmillg6 11r.1 almost in similar factual background, a matter travellr:d from this Court to Suprr:rre Court and the Supreme Court in clear terms opined that finalcial constraints can be a ground to take a decision prescrilting a cut-off date. The next reliance s placed on the judgment ol- Supreme Court in State of Tripura v. Anjana Bhattacharjees. On the strength of this judgment, Sri S. Rahul Reddy submits t_hat after considering a catena of judg;ments, the Supreme courl made it crear that financiar burden r:an lead to Itxing of a ,:ut-off date, which cannot be sz:id to be unconstitutional in nature. Thus, the learned Single Judge has taken a plausiblr: view which does not warrant any interference bv this Court. 9 The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated ' 1zoos.; l: scc tc r ' 2022 SCC Online SC li)i i .4_- 5 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J wa 209 2025 & batch We have heard the parties at length and perused the record 10 Findings:- 1 1. Before deating with rival contentions' it is apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of G'O'Ms'No'SS and 56' dated ll.06.2O2l, which reads as under: G.O.Ms.No.55: al The existing Pension/Family Pension' in respecl of uil;'il;;J o-r died *r'ir' i" slrvice prior to 01'o7'2018 i,t-"^"" of Familv Pen-sioners w!3 are tn "#""i;;'; receipt of Family Pension u" ott i 'Z'ZO t8 be consolidated' u"'*rt or 307o on the Basic -p"t'"iot ;;"Iil;;;ii"""i and bv merging the i'"""iJJiu?"t"- r^miiv b."."" J"-nJr et g so'zoi"L admissible as on. o' 1'o7' 20 1 8' The same shall be fttto*t' t" Revised Consolidated Basic R;;;d consolidated Basic Familv Pensron' ;;;i; b) This Revised Consolidated Basic Pension or Revised Consolidated Basic FamilY Pen SION shall come into force t benefit be cl The Consolidated Pension / Family Pension shall be iri^ii.,i",#-t"tt' tru""e' 2o2r pavabte in the month ofJulY,2O21. d) The arrears on account of Consolidation of Pension/Family Pensron /Financial Assistance for the ::'#'il;;'"i.oq.zozo to'3r'o5'2o21' will be paid in 36 equal monthlY inslalments' t from o1.o7.2014 notio from o 1.O4 2020. e No difference on Re ) Earned Leave shall be retired between0 t.o7 tirement GratuitY/ Encashment of allowed in case of emPloYees who 2018 and 31.Q 3.2020

5. While frxing the consoiidated Ba i..,=ion as above, Part of a ruPee' ."""a"a off to the next higher rupee sic Pension/Basic FamilY if any arrived, should be I i I I I 6 I] ACJ (SP,J) & RY.J \\Ia 209 2025 & barch

6. While con-solialating the pension. the additional qr,rantum of pension paid to pensioners on attaining specihed ag,:s, rvhich is shou'n distinctly, should be ignored. I.',:_,1.^c:sc of employees who retired from senice on or after 3. rhe pension shall be calculatJ-o,., rt e pay in 91 97 ?0_1 Revised Pa1 Scales, 2O2O only. iffi;

8.1^ Thg_-t.]n plovees who retired between 01.07.2i)ig ancl +0:2941 a re elieibte ror.ffi !=_S+1.., 2020 norionalrv as-;;-he offiJssut d in the G.O. sixrl read above. As such, tn" f.rr.io,r" l[ these employees have to be revised notionally bJ;J;; th,: revised pay.in Revrsed pay Scales, 2O2o and;;;t",y [e,.,.r,t should be allowerl I--o m 0l .O4.2O2O onlv 8.2 No cliflcrence on Retirement Gratui tvl En cash nenI of Earned on' the penslon notionally fixed as above." hall be allowed to the Pensioners Leave s G.O.Ms.No. 56: "6 The ari.ars on account of revision of Gratuit.,. [r.m o7.o4.2o2o to 31.os.2o21,..will be ilJ ; jiir,'=_'i;;i equal month [y installments.,, (trmphasis Su.rplied) I2 As noticed above, learned counsel for the appell..rnts placed reliance on tu.o judgments of Supreme Court in AJI Manipur Pensioners Associatioa and Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex-Employees Association (both suprra). The Constitutior-r Bench judgment of Supreme (supra) was also r-elied upon. Court in DS Nakara I 3. In AII Manipur pensioners Association (sr..pra) , the Supreme Court r:onsidered the decision ald action of cr,:ating two l I l +- 7 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wa 2Og 2025 &b^tch classes vtz., otewho retired pre-L996 and others who retired post- 1996 for the purpose of grant of revised pension' The Supreme Court opined that such classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of beneht of revised pension' It is furthei are entitled to opined that all pensioners form one s1255 who pension as per Article 14 of the Constitution' AccordinglY, the cut-offdateinthisbackd.ropwasheldtobeimproper. I4 A careful reading of the above judgment also shows that in no uncertain terms m para 8-2 it was poignantlY held that whenever a new beneht is granted or new scheme is introduced' State may provide a cut-off date taking into account its financial resources-

15. In Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ex- Court agaln Employees Association (supra)' the Supreme consideredthattheemployeeswhoretiredpriorto

29.o3.2010 Since there andsubsequenttheretowereperformingsameduties. was no valid distinction between those who retired before 2g.O3.2OlO and those who continued thereafter' the Supreme Court held that classification is improper and the appeal was accordingly allowed' Pertinently' in this case' the Supreme Court 8 H AC]J (SP.J) & RY,J Wa 209 2025 & harch had no occast()n to consider the aspect of hnancial <:onstraints of the State Gove:nment.

16. In the c;rse of A.p. pensioners, Association, GO(p) No.l 14, dated 1 1.08.1999, r.r,as subject marter of challenge. i.he offending clauses 9 and I6 are reproduced for ready reference. "9. Persons who retired between l_T_7gga and 3 t_3_1999 shall also be eligible for the Revised pay Scales, i 9,)9. The notional pzLy hxed in the Revised piy Scales, 1999 in accordancr u.ith these orders, shall in such cascs count lowards pc n sionary benefits.

16. Separate orders are also being issued in regar I to the recommencla tions of the pay Revision Commission"o., p..r"ior_, and other te rminal benefits..

77. The State, also issued GO(p) No.15 on 16.09.1991), wherein it was categorically stated that revised consolidated pt:nsion shall come into force with effect from O1.07.19gg witlL monetary benefits pal,able from 01.04.19g9. G.O.Ms.No.l5g u,as issued on 76.O9.1999 entrancing the limit of commutation of perLsion under Rules to 4O.k of pension sanctioned to the pensioners with effect from 01.04.1999. Such enhancement was made app.icabie only in relation to r he persons who retired or died o rr or after O1.04.1999. Ort 23.12.1ggg, G.O.Ms.No.2O6 was rssued ald all these cut off d.r.es and aspect of financial constralnts became subject matter ol consideration before the Supreme Court. The /,. 9 HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wa 209 2025 & batch Supreme Court in A.P. Pensioners' Association (suPra) considered its previous judgment in State Goverament Pensioners' Association v. State of Asdhra Pradesho and opined as under: v. State of A.P. [(19861 3 "32. ln State Gout. Pensioners'Assn s Court accepted that SCC 5O1 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 6761 perative frorn l-4-1978, when the revised scheme became Revised Pension Rules, non-payment of gratuitY under th 1980 was not PaYable to those Pe sloners who retired prior thereto statin and their gratuity governed by the then existing rul calculated on that basis. The Court rejected the contention s Article 14 of the that the same was ultra Constitution." that at the tlme of retirement th (Emphasis SuPPlied)

18. After detailed analysis, the Sup me Court made it clear that consideration to determrne Iinancial implication can be a rele the cut-off date. The relevant paragr h reads as under: "39. It is, therefore, beYond anY hadow of doubt that the criterion for the State financial imPlication is a releva Government to determine as t what benefits can be furtherance of the granted pursuant to or in RC also said that while recommendations made bY PRC' 1-7-1998, the monetary revision of pay shall take effect fro l-4-1999. If monetary beneht would be PaYable onlY beneht was PaYable onlY from 1-4- 999, all rights to get the the revised scale of PaY benefits comPuted on the basts ayment of PaY with effect would only be for the PurPose of rring amount of Pension from l-4-1999 or Payment of the re with effect from that date." P o (Emphasis SuPPlied) u (L9sr) 3 scc sot t0

19. A simila;- vievv is taken in the case (supra), which reads as under: H, \CJ (SP,J) & RY,J \\ra 209 2025 & barch of Anjana Bhattacharjee \ "19. Whetherr the financial crunch /financial constrair rt due to additional Enancial burden cal be a valid ground to _ix a cut_ off date fc.,r the urpose of granting the actual b:nefit of p revision c,f pen STON /pay has been dealt with and/or considered bv this Court in Amar Nath Gogal [,State of hmjab v. Arnar Nath Gogal, (2oo5) 6 SCC 7 54 2()O5 SCC (L&s) e10l ln the aforesaid decision it is observed zrnd held thi Cortrt that financial constraint for hxatio benefit of increased tirement In paras; 26, 32 and 33 of the sairl udgment fState of punjab v. Ar, ar Nath Goyal, (2005) 6 SCC 754 2005 scc (L&S) 91O l, it is crbserved and held as under : (SCC pp. 763 & 76s) t-off date for canbeav n of cu ath-cum- J " 26. IL ..s; difficult to accede to the argument on behz:lf of the errployees that a decision of the Cerrtral Gor.ernrn ent/ State Governments to limit the beneht s onl v to em1;lovecs, who re tire or die on or after l-4-1995 after calculating the financial implicattons thereon was e: ther rrration. or ar implicat rons are t IOn to ch bitrary. at the Cen tre or at the S administr level. HACJ (SP.J) & RY,J Wz 209 2025 & batch applied differently to persons who had retired from service before 1-7- 1986, and those who were in employment on the said date. It was held that they could not be treated alike as they did not belong to one class alrd they formed separate classes."

20. In the aforesaid decision this Court after considering the earlier decisions of this Court rn State of Punjab v. Boota Singh[Stateof Punjabv. Boota.Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 733:20O0 SCC (L&S) a35l and State of Punjob v. J.L. Gupto lState of Punjabv.J.L. Gupta, (2000) 3 SCC 736 : 2OOO SCC (L&S) 4371, it is specihcally observed and held that for the grant of additional beneht. which had Iinancial implications. the prescrlptron of a specihc future date for conferment of additional benefit, could not be considered arbitrary.

21. In the subsequent decision it Bihor Pensioners Samaj lState of Bihar v. Bihar Pensioners Samaj, (2006) 5 SCC 65:2006 SCC (L&S) 9131 , the decision in Amor Nath Gogal [State of hnjab v. Amar Nath Gogal, (2OO5l 6 SCC 754 : 2005 SCC (I.&S) 91Ol is followed and it is observed and held that hnancial constraints could be a valid qround for introducine a cut-off date while introducins a pension scheme on revised basis. It is further observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benehts is well within the powers of the Government as long as the reasons therefor are not artritrary and are based on some rational consideration." (Emphasis Supplied)

20. At the cost of repetition, in the case of AII Manipur Pensioners Association (supra) on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Supreme Court opined that the Iinancial constraints can be a valid consideration for prescribing a cut-off date. In other cases cited by the State, it is clea-rly held that hnancial constraints carr be a reason for prescribing a cut-off date. t2 HA( rJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wa 2')9 2025 & batch

21. In the instant case, learned Single Judge considered the judgment relierl upon by the parties and came to the conclusion as under: "ln the instilrt case, lor the purpose of achieving thc r:bject of extending tlrr: revised pay scales/pension to its serving/retired employees, duly balancing the financial implications on the State Exchequer, the Government has prescribed a cut-off dat for extending the monetary benefits arising on account of enhanced Encashment of Leave and Gral uity, to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons which admittedly do not have any impact on the pensio'r being dralr.n b1, the m and it also cannot be said that the sairl action of the respondents is against the object/purpose of rer ision of payscalcs and pension. Therefore, the judgments relierl by the petitioners zrre distinguishable on facts and no avail to Lhein." (Empha.ris Supplied)

22. If the fincUngs given by learned single Judge ar,: tested on the anvil of principles laid down in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra), A.P. Pensioners' Association (supra) and Anjana Bhattacharjee (supra), it can be safely held that the findings given by the learned single Judge are based on the ratio decidendi of the said cases. The learned singk, Judge has applied a releviurt consideration i.e., financial constraLnts on the State exchequer Thus, even assuming for the sake of argument that persons retired before a pa-rticular cut-off date and after a cut-off date belong to a homogenous class, the fact remains that decision to graxt the benefit from a cut-off date based c'n financial ( ( HACJ (SP,J) & RY'J Wa 209 2025 & batch constraints is founded upon a valid consideration' No amount of argument is advanced to attack the prescription of cut-off date based on hnancial constraints' Thus' in otrr view' the learned single Judge has taken a plausible view which warrants no interference '

23. The Writ Appeals fail and are hereby dismissed' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed SD/.M.fi,lANJULA JOINT REGISTRAR \ \ To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 One CC to SRI PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU' Advo loPUCl 2. One CC to Ms. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA' Advocate IOPUCI 3. Two CCs to SRI S'RAHUL REDDY' SPL GP' High Court for the State of " iiiringJn, at HYderabad [oUT] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II' High Court for the State of Telangana at ;h court for the state of

5. Two CCs to ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL' Hig " iJri"s* at Hyderabad [oUT] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION' High Court for the State " ;i%i";#;Jat HYderabad [oUTl 7. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [oUTl BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED: 11104t2025 \ COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.2Og, 170 and 210 of 2025 , , )\- ., ' r,l5 iI A i(. q,: a \ \ 2 6 APn 2[25 2 o I '.sPatc * DISMISSING ALL THE WRIT APPEALS, WITHOUT COSTS C\"